Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+8 more 
posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
This should be an interesting discussion.



“As people [Republicans] who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.”


While Rick Santorum prods Mitt Romney, the presumed GOP presidential candidate, to go bold and strike out against gay marriage, Romney is tepidly saying such things as marriage should be “between one man and one woman.” Not a ringing indictment of gay marriage but just enough to set the hearts aflutter of social conservatives and evangelicals. For some Republicans, however, it may be too much.


One admittedly gay donor, Bill White, who is the chairman and CEO of the New York consulting firm Constellations Group, had given $2,500 to the Romney campaign and now he wants his money back. White sent a letter to the Romney campaign, saying, "I feel that I no longer wish to support your presidential campaign and ask that you please return the maximum contribution that I gave to you last year. You have chosen to be on the wrong side of history and I do not support your run for president any longer.”


1. Gay marriage promotes personal responsibility.

2. Gay marriage promotes family values.

3. Gay marriage promotes commitment and stability.

4. Gay marriage promotes freedom.

5. Gay marriage is an example of limited governmental powers.



Visit the Source to read more.




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
During the primaries, the GOP candidates kept invoking Margaret Thatcher as a stalwart example of their Conservative values.

Santorum AND Romney both invoked the memories of her in charge of the UK during speeches.

Good old Maggie was FOR gay rights, including civil unions. She was actually a very progressive leader for her time. She was also in support of the idea of humans contributing to global warming, despite everyone telling her that she was nuts, and was pro choice, and was all for redistribution of wealth by de nationalising many of the Government run companies, such as British Telecom (I made a killing on BT stock).

Today, the GOP would call her a moderate socialist if they reviewed her true positions.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I disagree but to each his own.
I guess you could say the same thing about any marriage.


+5 more 
posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by freakjive
1. Gay marriage promotes personal responsibility.

2. Gay marriage promotes family values.

3. Gay marriage promotes commitment and stability.

4. Gay marriage promotes freedom.

5. Gay marriage is an example of limited governmental powers.


Gays have no right to hijack the word 'marriage' and force the majority to consider a union between two men to be the same, in a very legal sense, as a union between a man and a women.

Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote

The majority of people believe that marriage means a legal union between a man and women, not between two men.


edit on 22-5-2012 by ollncasino because: formatting



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I love your reasons and agree with them all. The conservative side of me is the reason I agree that ALL people should have equal access to the same liberties and freedoms, without interference from the government. If they are going to offer a contractual agreement to some people, it should be available to all.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Frankly marriage has a length-of-recorded-history-long definition that has not changed in all those years. Now some want to change the definition of this ancient subject? That's more than a bit crazy.

At the same time, Marraige, as it's defined in the US, is a financial discrimination, as it stands now. The cost it takes to do all the things marriage legally does for a couple is quite high for anyone who is not married to attain. This is where the problem could be addressed and still keep both sides happy.


+5 more 
posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Gays have no right to hijack the word 'marriage'


No one is trying to steal words.
Gay people have as much right to it as straight people.



and force the majority to consider a union between two men to be the same, in a very legal sense, as a union between a man and a women.


No one can force you to consider them the same, even though they are. You are free to think they are different.



The majority of people believe that marriage means a legal union between a man and women, not between two men.


1. Since when do we allow the opinion of the majority to oppress the minority?
2. You're wrong. The majority of Americans agree with marriage equality.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I love your reasons and agree with them all. The conservative side of me is the reason I agree that ALL people should have equal access to the same liberties and freedoms, without interference from the government. If they are going to offer a contractual agreement to some people, it should be available to all.


In the UK, gays have access to the same rights via a 'civil union'. That is not enough for them however. They also want their civil unions to be called marriages.

This isn't about legal rights. It's about the gay community demanding that the heterosexual majority lend them moral support.

Marriage means a legal union between a man and a women. Not between two men.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You're wrong. The majority of Americans agree with marriage equality.


Yet

Gay marriage thrown out by all 31 U.S. states where it has been put to vote

What should we believe?

One opinion poll or the results of 31 states that have voted against gay marriage?


It would appear that the balance of evidence suggests that you are mistaken.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
You know what the problem is with marojity deciding this kind of issues?
Black slaves and no rights for women..yeah, i went there.

Equality is for all, the laws we really need to vote on are not personal.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evansr
You know what the problem is with marojity deciding this kind of issues?
Black slaves and no rights for women..yeah, i went there.


Gays' already have equal legal rights in the UK with civil partnerships.

That has not stopped them from agitating for the legal meaning of the word marriage to be changed.

Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.


+2 more 
posted on May, 22 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Evansr
You know what the problem is with marojity deciding this kind of issues?
Black slaves and no rights for women..yeah, i went there.


Gays' already have equal legal rights in the UK with civil partnerships.

That has not stopped them from agitating for the legal meaning of the word marriage to be changed.

Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.


Gay marriage does not redefine heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is still heterosexual marriage, no matter what you call gay unions. Gay marriage doesn't affect my heterosexual marriage in the least. I am a woman married to a man, and I will still be a woman married to a man when gay marriage is legalized.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Gay marriage doesn't affect my heterosexual marriage in the least. I am a woman married to a man, and I will still be a woman married to a man when gay marriage is legalized.


If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. Schools will have to teach the new definition to children. That isn't speculation. It has already happened.


California Passes Gay History Education Bill

A bill to require gay and lesbian history to be taught in schools passed the California State Assembly.

The bill "would require schools to teach at all grade levels the historical contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people,"
Link


All grades must be taught about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people?

Its a brave new future and it is gay.



edit on 22-5-2012 by ollncasino because: fix link



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. Schools will have to teach the new definition to children. That isn't speculation. It has already happened.


California Passes Gay History Education Bill

A bill to require gay and lesbian history to be taught in schools passed the California State Assembly.

The bill "would require schools to teach at all grade levels the historical contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people,"

Link


All grades must be taught about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people?

Its a brave new future and it is gay.



That has nothing to do with gay marriage. Leonardo DaVinci was gay -- you don't think his historical contributions should be included? Oh, I guess you want to make sure that the fact he was gay is kept a secret. Why? We teach about the historical contributions of black people. Do you think it was always that way? It was most certainly not.

All this education bill wants to do is to point out that this group of people have contributed positive things to our society. It won't turn children gay -- I promise you.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
That has nothing to do with gay marriage. Leonardo DaVinci was gay -- you don't think his historical contributions should be included?


Why should the fact that Leonardo DaVinci was gay (?) be taught to kids at all?

Why is his sexuality relevant when teaching children?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
All this education bill wants to do is to point out that this group of people have contributed positive things to our society. It won't turn children gay -- I promise you.


Hetrosexual people have also contributed positive things to our society.

But no one has passed a law forcing teachers to point out that they preferred to have sex with members of the opposite sex.

Why can't gays keep sex out of classroom?


edit on 22-5-2012 by ollncasino because: Fix error
edit on 22-5-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
All this education bill wants to do is to point out that this group of people have contributed positive things to our society. It won't turn children gay -- I promise you.


Hetrosexual people have also contributed positive things to our society.

But no one has passed a law forcing teachers to point out that they preferred to have sex with members of the opposite sex.

Why can't gays keep sex out of classroom?



That's because heterosexual people haven't been discriminated against because of their heterosexuality.

This isn't about sex. The bill is not saying that the specific sex acts of gays must be described. They are a group of people who are in the minority, and they are discriminated against.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
That's because heterosexual people haven't been discriminated against because of their heterosexuality.


If homosexuals achievements are taught as gay achievements yet heterosexual achievements are not taught as such, surely it is heterosexuals who are now being discriminated against?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
This isn't about sex.


So forcing teachers to define a group of people by their sexuality isn't about sex?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by kaylaluv
That's because heterosexual people haven't been discriminated against because of their heterosexuality.


If homosexuals achievements are taught as gay achievements yet heterosexual achievements are not taught as such, surely it is heterosexuals who are now being discriminated against?


What a silly argument. Hopefully, someday, being gay won't be an issue at all, and they will have all rights that everyone else has, and it truly won't matter what someone's orientation is. Until then, it is an issue, and it does matter.











edit on 22-5-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join